---

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is not an allocation of two minutes. I am seeking to ensure that all noble Lords who wish to speak will be able to do so within the 20 minutes allocated.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I shall certainly endeavour to ensure that I do not take more than an adequate time. I find it tiresome that on an important issue such as this, which deals directly with Northern Ireland, I am the first to have a finger pointed at the clock.

I return to the foreword, which is supposed to ameliorate some of the difficulties presented by Justice Cory's report. In the second paragraph he states that he had the preliminary role of looking to see whether there is a case to be answered as to possible collusion "in a wide sense". As someone who soldiered in Northern Ireland for 12 years, I simply say that if there had been collusion in a wide sense the Gerry Adams's and the Martin McGuinness's would not be alive today. More importantly, the innocent Roman Catholics who were killed by loyalists would not be dead today. I do not believe that there was collusion in a wide sense.

Finally, perhaps I may inquire about the apparent confusion over the issue of the cost of subsequent inquiries. How will that be met? I heard the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place state that it would not come out of departmental budgets but out of the Northern Ireland budget. I take that to

1 Apr 2004 : Column 1526

mean that it will come out of the block grant. If it does, the knock-on effect will be that, ultimately, it will come out of the departmental budgets.

More importantly, what will happen to the retired police officers and retired military personnel who are required to give evidence? Where will the funding come from for them? Or will they, after all their service in Northern Ireland—to which the Government and everyone else pays tribute—have to look to their own resources and fund themselves?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall address the questions as quickly as I can. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who also asked about a future opportunity to discuss the inquiry. Obviously that issue needs to be discussed through the usual channels. This is a matter of considerable interest, I know, and I and others will consider what possibilities there may be for taking it further forward.

As regards Weston Park, let me quote the commitment made by the Government. We stated:

"If the appointed judge considers that in any case this has not provided a sufficient basis on which to establish the facts, he or she can report to this effect with recommendations as to what further action should be taken. In the event that a Public Inquiry is recommended in any case, the relevant Government will implement that recommendation".

That is the commitment that the Government stand by.

As to the issue of judges, of course we are very grateful to Justice Cory for the work he has done. In the Bloody Sunday inquiry the tribunal members combined both international and UK perspectives and expertise. We would aim to do the same for these inquiries. Costs will be met from the Northern Ireland budget.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the report into the Finucane investigation seriously impugns the conduct of four soldiers and other servants of the state. Is it not very unfair on these people that the report has not been much more extensively redacted than it has been?

If it is going to be published now—the noble Baroness was asked this question but I did not hear her reply to it—is it not the case that the judge never interviewed or consulted any of these soldiers, nor gave any of them any opportunity to deal with any ground for criticism which the judge was minded to identify? And yet had not the judge been expressly instructed by the Government in June 2002 that,

"Your task will be . . . to interview anyone you think can assist your examination"?

In the view of the noble Baroness, will it not be only a matter of days before the media uncover, if they do not know them already, the identities of all these individuals referred to by cipher initials in the report? Will not the media immediately go to town on them? Will not the individuals be precluded under the Official Secrets Act, to say nothing of the threat held over them of further prosecutions, from defending themselves? Will not they be foreseeably exposed to the risk of physical danger? How can this possibly be a fair

1 Apr 2004 : Column 1527

procedure and how can the publication of this unredacted report in that regard possibly be said to fulfil the duty of care that all governments owe to those who serve or have served the state?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat what I said before. We considered very carefully our obligation to ensure fairness to individuals. There are parts of the report which are redacted, as the noble and learned Lord knows, but we had to make a balanced judgment. As I said, we gave individuals notice of our intention to publish the report and offered them the opportunity to receive the relevant report in advance in confidence.

As to the point about individuals being interviewed, Justice Cory has made it absolutely clear in his foreword the procedure that was followed. He states:

"Given the preliminary and provisional nature of the task assigned to me, and the desirability of arriving at recommendations expeditiously, it was not necessary or appropriate for me to hear any oral evidence from the individuals referred to in my reports. Obviously, before any final findings of fact or determinations of responsibility could be made, it would be necessary for individuals to have an opportunity of answering any potential criticisms which may be made of them".

On that basis, the Government have agreed that there should be inquiries into the three cases.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I hope that the House will understand if I quote a sentence from a speech of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor in winding up the debate on the Hutton report. The noble and learned Lord said:

"The Government fully accept, and must learn from the fact, that much more care could have been taken in relation to Dr Kelly and we apologise unreservedly for that".—[Official Report, 4/2/04; col. 788.]

In the context of those cases, how have the Government demonstrated that they have learnt from their confessed omissions in the case of Dr Kelly, for which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, apologised unreservedly in the debate?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Ministry of Defence and the Police Service of Northern Ireland have taken a number of steps to ensure that staff are properly supported. Letters were sent to individuals in recent weeks to alert them to the publication of the report and to offer them the opportunity to receive it in confidence the day before publication. Individuals have been reminded by their organisations of the support that is available; for example, through trade unions, the welfare services and personnel departments. At publication, letters were sent to individuals to inform them of the Secretary of State's decisions and to seek to answer any questions that they might have.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, since there is a little time left, perhaps I may draw a further point to the attention of the noble Baroness in the light of her assertion, in justification of the Government's action, that individuals had been sent in confidence copies of the report. The point is that they had no opportunity to comment on any ground of criticism discerned by

1 Apr 2004 : Column 1528

the judge before the report was finalised. That is an absolutely essential element of fairness in any procedure of this character.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is precisely why the foreword of the report makes it absolutely clear that its determinations are not final, nor are they attributions of responsibility. That is why a decision has been taken to have inquiries into those cases.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, since we are allowed a little further time, in the light of the answer that the Leader of the House has just given, it should be stated that issues about the identity of the people becoming known are absolutely on a par with the case of Dr Kelly, where the problems of care emerged. On the basis of both the answers of the noble Baroness, I cannot agree that proper care has been provided.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. We have taken care. We made a balanced judgment. We looked at the support that is available to those individuals. We did that very carefully indeed.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have three points. First, are we to see the reports sent to the Irish Government as well, since they address cases that are of great interest to them? Secondly, at Weston Park, the OTR promise was made. Will that be stuck to? At that time, the on-the-runs were told that there would be a minimal judicial inquiry and process. I hope that the Government will now apply the same rules as they appear to be applying in the report. Thirdly, the two governments signed an agreement on "the disappeared", which accepted the IRA condition that there should be no serious inquest that could reveal, through DNA or otherwise, the identities of the murderers of the people who disappeared. Two bodies were returned after that. Does the Minister expect that a number of families, like the McConville family, may now come forward with an equal right to demand the kind of inquiry that is now been considered?

---